Who Are the Terrorists?

[rahly]

*** Your government is there to 'protect' you!

UTAH RAVERS TREATED LIKE TERRORISTS!
- Daily Kos

UTAH RAVERS TREATED LIKE TERRORISTS! EVOL INTENT'S ACCOUNT OF THE
INCIDENT!

Last night, I was booked to play an event about an hour outside of
Salt Lake City, Utah. The hype behind this show was huge, they
presold 700 tickets and they expected up to 3,000 people total. The
promoters did an amazing job with the show.. they even made
slipmats with the flyers on them to promote in local shops.

So, we got to the show around 11:15 or so and it was really cool.
It was all outdoors, in a valley surrounded by huge mountains. They
had an amazing light show flashing on to a mountain behind the site,
the sound was booming, the crowd was about 1500 people thick and
everything just seemed too good to be true really. Well...

At about 11:30 or so, I was standing behind the stage talking with
someone when I noticed a helicopter pulling over one of the mountain
tops. I jokingly said "Oh look, here comes big brother" to the
person I was with. I wasn't far off.

The helicopter dipped lower and lower and started shining its lights
on the crowd. I was kind of in awe and just sat and watched this
thing circle us for a minute. As I looked back towards the crowd I
saw a guy dressed in camoflauge walking by, toting an assault rifle.
At this point, everyone was fully aware of what was going on. A
few "troops" rushed the stage and cut the sound off and started
yelling that everyone "get the **** out of here or go to jail".
This is where it got really sticky.

No one resisted. That's for sure. They had police dogs raiding the
crowd of people and I saw a dog signal out a guy who obviously had
some drugs on him. The soldiers attacked the guy (4 of them on 1),
and kicked him a few times in the ribs and had their knees in his
back and sides. As they were cuffing him, there was about 1000 kids
trying to leave in the backdrop, peacefully. Next thing I know, A
can of ****ing TEAR GAS is launched into the crowd. People are
running and screaming at this point. Girls are crying, guys are
cussing... bad scene.

Now, this is all I saw with my own eyes, but I heard plenty of other
accounts of the night. Now this isn't gossip I heard from some candy
raver, these are instances cited straight out of the promoters
mouth..

One of the promoters friends (a very small female) was attacked by
one of the police dogs. As she struggled to get away from it, the
police tackled her. 3 grown men proceeded to KICK HER IN THE
STOMACH.

The police confiscated 3 video tapes in total. People were trying
to document what was happening out there. The police saw one guy
filming and ran after him, tackled him and his camera fell, and
luckily.. his friend grabbed it and ran and got away. priceless
footage. That's not all though. Out of 1,500 people, there's sure
to be more footage.

The police were rounding up the staff of the party and the main
promoter went up to them with the permit for the show and said
"here, I have the permit." The police then said, "no you don't" and
ripped the permit out of his hand. Then, they put an assault rifle
to his forehead and said "get the **** out of here right now."

Now.. let's get the facts straight here.

This event was 100 percent legal. They had every permit the city
told them they needed. They had a 2 MILLION DOLLAR insurance policy
for the event. They had licensed security guards at the gates
confiscating any alcohol or drugs found upon entry (yes, they
searched every car on the way in). Oh, I suppose I should mention
that they arrested all the security guards for possession.

Oh another interesting fact.. the police did not have a warrant.
The owner of the land already has a lawsuit against the city for
something similar. A few months ago, she rented her land for a
party and the police raided that as well. And catch this, the
police forced her to LEAVE HER OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY. That's right.
They didn't arrest her, but made her leave her own property!!!

Don't get it twisted, this is all going down in probably THE most
conservative state in the USA. And this is scary.. a gross
violation of our civil liberties. The police wanted this party shut
down, so they made it happen. Even though everything about this
event was legal. The promoters spent over $ 20,000 on this show and
did everything they had to to make it legit, only to have it taken
away from them by a group of radical neo-con's with an agenda.

This was one of the scariest things I have ever witnessed in person.
I can't even begin to describe how surreal it was. Helicopters,
assault rifles, tear gas, camoflauge-wearing soldiers.... why? Was
that really necessary?

This needs to be big news across the USofA. At least in our music
scene (edm as a whole)... this could happen to any of us at any
time. When we're losing the right to gather peacefully, we're also
letting the police set a standard of what we can get away with. And
I think that's BULLSHIT!

The system ****ed up last night... They broke up a party that was
100percent legal and they physically hurt a lot of people there at
the same time. The promoters already have 6 lawsuits ready to file
with their lawyers and the ACLU is already involved.

I'm sure some pictures (and hopefully some video) will surface soon.
I'll make sure to post them up here on 404, so you can see the
Police State of America at work.

p.s. - there are more stories of police brutality that I'll post up
later. gotta hit the airport soon. can't wait to get the **** out
of this shit hole state.
www.buzzlife.com/forums/showthread.php

[Watson]

Bloody Hell Rahly, this is *&^%ing crazy.
I have been to quite a few outdoor raves here in Aotearoa, and you are right about the atmosphere, light shows etc, it sounds unreal in your mountain backed area. I can only imagine how these people must of felt, terrified is the obvious word that comes to mind, then unbelief, outrage and helplessness.
I want to say more, but to be honest I dont know what to say, I am lost for words.
Take care
BTW: Could you put the link up to the talk on this subject, I could not find it in the forum, I want to pass it on.

[Flash]

Were any of the troops US soldiers?

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that it was one of the most repressive states in the US. I make a differentiation between that and conservative. Utah is a state which has its own rules.

One of the strengths of the US is that the states do make their rules. Another of the strengths is that the US constitution trumps those rules when a state action goes too far.

This is one of the few times that I wish I were practising in Utah. This case sounds like great fun, and profitable.

America is a work in progress.

[rahly]

Here's the full link,Watson:

http://www.buzzlife.com/forums/showt...ht=Utah+Ravers


More info on the event can be found at http://www.utrave.org - visit there for more stories, accounts, etc.

How'bout some video:
Video: http://homepage.mac.com/apexgrin/FileSharing2.html


Enjoy

[rahly]

U.S. strips more freedom from citizens than terrorists ever could
- Roger Duncan (Duncan, of Blacksburg, is an electro-optic engineer.)

As I write these words, I'm sitting at a crowded gate at the Los
Angeles airport awaiting the redeye to Roanoke. I've just gone
through security screening, and I've rarely felt so violated. After
waiting in line for 25 minutes to check in, I'm told I have to wait
again for my bag to be X-rayed. Another 25 minutes.

Given the amount of free time I had, I decided to spend some of it
contemplating what a thoroughly useless gesture the X-ray screening
is. I understand the purpose is to prevent bombs from finding their
way onto planes through checked bags, but the chances of actually
detecting a bomb from someone who seriously wants to blow up an
airplane must surely be minuscule. But I digress.

No doubt, its real intention is to make travelers feel better,
subsidized by the taxpayers to the tune of God knows how much.

After clearing the X-ray line, it gets interesting. My boarding
pass and ID are checked before proceeding to security. Then,
they're checked again by someone 15 feet away from the first
checkpoint who saw me get checked the first time. Weird.

Then, the actual line for personal screening. Remove the laptop
from its case. Simply can't risk it blowing up. When it's finally
my turn to walk through the metal detector, the gentleman in charge
of waving people through politely reminds me that it's recommended
that I remove my shoes.

Then, he reminds me again. I respond, "Yes, I heard you." Another
warning, this time less polite, "We strongly recommend you remove
your shoes, sir!" Again, I respond, "I understand." I walk through
the metal detector uneventfully.

But my friend hasn't forgotten my impertinence. "Now you've done
it. You get to go through the special line!" The special line
consisted of five solid minutes of probing with wands, patting down,
spread this way, turn that way, etc. And I still had to take my
shoes off. So, I guess what they mean when they say that shoe
removal is recommended is that it's required. Bizarre. They should
just say that. It would've spared me a public probing that I could
live without.

So, this is the legacy of 9/11. This is part of our fearsome
response to the terrorists. We'll inconvenience them. Doubly so if
they don't remove their shoes. The point of this rambling essay,
and I can assure you it does have one, isn't that one average Joe
couldn't be bothered to take his shoes off. It's the whole security
versus freedom issue. How can we legitimately claim that we're
preserving freedom when our response to terrorism is the exactly
opposite of that?

After the collapse of the twin towers, our Congress, in a patriotic
fervor (more exactly described as a mad panic), passed sweeping
legislation that did more to strip away freedom from the American
people than 1,000 flying bombs. The Patriot Act. The very name is
cynical.

One observation I've made is how frequently we Americans confuse
security and freedom. Here's an example.

The war in Iraq was justified by claims that Saddam had weapons of
mass destruction and he might use them on us, or he might give them
to terrorists to use on us.

Neglecting for a moment the morphing nature of the justification for
the war, we were, and are, daily informed that our soldiers over
there are fighting for our freedom.

In fact, this isn't true. They're fighting for our security, and
even the truth of that is dubious at best. The only time a war
becomes about preserving the freedom of a nation is when the nation
is in some way threatened with the loss of said freedom.

Despite his presumed madness and regardless of the number of WMD he
did or didn't have, Saddam didn't have the power to remove a single
iota of freedom from any American. No action he could take could
conceivably result in a loss of freedom. There was never even the
slightest of chances that we would see an Iraqi invasion force land
on our shores.

Now, one may be able to argue that his remaining in power
hypothetically threatened Americans. But taking someone's life and
taking someone's freedom are two different things. Saddam could
only kill me; he couldn't take my freedom. So logically, it isn't
freedom that our troops are fighting for, but security. But I
suppose that makes a somewhat less poetic rallying cry.

Now, the president is a different story. He can actually take away
a great deal of my freedom. And boy, has he been busy!

Ironic that we're actually called to sacrifice portions of our
freedom for the Patriot Act, and the justification is that it
preserves freedom. Talk about Orwellian.

Bush and his cronies are therefore, logically, the real enemies of
freedom. Lest you think me a member of the John Kerry fan club, I
think it's fair to say that there are no greater enemies of freedom
than the liberals. I just think that, in this case, ol' W is giving
them a run for their money.

So, let's be honest with ourselves in this debate. Let's not lie
and proclaim "Give me liberty or give me death!" when what we
really mean is "I'm a coward; I surrender the freedoms my
forefathers died for in order to save my miserable hide!" Is that
not, after all, exactly what we mean?

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act."
- George Orwell, "1984."

[rahly]

*** License to Kill
- Adam Young

It was inevitable, I suppose. Just like the sea of sewage that
attempted to justify the invasion of Iraq, the "facts" surrounding
the cold-blooded state murder of poor Jean Charles de Menezes have
evaporated over time. Except this time, it only took days instead
of months.

First we were told that he was directly involved in the aborted
terror bombings the day before he was killed. As the story goes, an
"Asian-looking man" was spotted exiting a house that was under
surveillance for suspected terrorists. When confronted by
undercover police (i.e., camouflaged, armed killers), he bolted and
ran, jumping a turnstile and running into a train where he was
tackled by these three state killers and shot five times in the head
(later revised to seven, and eight times in total). All because the
police claimed he had been wearing a jacket inappropriate for London
weather.

Quickly all this fell away. First we were told that he wasn't
involved at all and the British public's first encounter with the
Blair regime's new shoot-to-kill policy (shoot first, never
apologize, to hell with due process, suspicion not facts are our new
methods) was all just a horrible mistake, but the police announced
they were still "comfortable" with a policy that produced such a
mistake.

Then we learned that he wasn't Asian but Brazilian, and was in
Britain legally and hoping to make enough money to move back to
Brazil and start a business of his own. So much for his dreams.

It wasn't bad enough that his regime had gunned down an innocent man
in front of dozens of witnesses. Blair and his henchmen had to
dance on the man's grave with their insincere and hollow "statements
of regret." Whatever Tony Blair says isn't worth reprinting, but
the statements by London's police commissioner Sir Ian Blair are, as
he defended their "license to kill," and actually suggested that
more killings of innocent people by police could occur in Britain.

"This is not a Metropolitan [police] policy, this is a national
policy and I think we are quite comfortable that the policy is
right, but of course these are fantastically difficult times . . .
there are still officers having to make those calls as we speak.
Somebody else could be shot."

What is this but an open declaration that the regime of Tony Blair
has established a policy that his police forces can shoot to kill
just on suspicion? Can kill anyone in Britain--including British
citizens--without any safeguards at all, based all on how someone
may walk or what they wear somewhere at some time. What is this but
an outright Soviet-style policy directed by the regime against the
general public? It's not too surprising that this was imported from
Israel, another regime tutored early on by Stalinism.

Seriously, if a British police officer is suspicious of your
behavior, not that you are being suspicious, merely that he or she
is suspicious of you, that officer is free to kill you on sight.
For national security, of course.

The low regard that Tony Blair and his regime have for human life,
even the lives of his British slaves is summed up by Sir Ian Blair's
immediate predecessor, the man who imported the shoot to kill
policy, John Stevens, who sent out sympathy and a shoulder not to
poor Jean Charles de Menezes, but to his murderer. "My heart goes
out to the officer who killed the man in Stockwell Tube Station," he
wrote.

And, now of course, we learned that he didn't run, he didn't hop the
turnstile and that he wasn't even wearing that suspiciously large
bomb concealing jacket that allegedly lead to his murder. "He used
a travel card," his cousin, Vivien Figueiredo, said. "He had no
bulky jacket, he was wearing a jeans jacket. But even if he was
wearing a bulky jacket, that wouldn't be an excuse to kill him."

"My cousin was an honest and hard working person," said Ms.
Figueiredo, who shared a apartment with him. "Although we are
living in circumstances similar to a war, we should not be
exterminating people unjustly."

But exterminating people unjustly is the pattern of Tony Blair's
political career of unrestrained evil.

After their excuses collapsed into the fetid swamp of lies that is
the stock in trade of the Blair regime, it was announced that the
Independent Police Complaints Commission has began an inquiry into
the murder. Not surprisingly, this is expected to take several
months, where it is undoubtedly believed that the public will have
lost interest in the results. Of the three armed killers involved
in the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, one has been put on leave,
and two have been moved to non-firearm duties, lest they kill again,
perhaps. Vivien Figuerdo condemned police chief Ian Blair's
decision to authorize the leave, saying she wanted to confront the
man who killed her cousin, and that he should be put in jail.

The de Menezes family's attorney, Gareth Peirce, condemned Ian
Blair's statements on the case, saying there had been a "regrettable
rush to judgment" and expressed astonishment that the phrase "shoot
to kill" was being used as if it was a legitimate legal term.

Welcome to Tony Blair's New Britain.

I wonder. If I was a stout young British lad, out on the town one
starry night and spotted someone acting suspiciously, perhaps say,
wearing a large jacket, and walking quickly, perhaps concealing some
sort of package or container of some sorts, could I act as the
police did? Let's suppose that as a patriotic Briton, marching in
knee-jerk lock-(goose)step with Blair and Bush and believing every
noble claim they make for their killings, and knowing that those
evil Arabs have infested Britain, I was determined to be a loyal
soldier on the home front war against Arab terror, and had
previously purchased a black market gun. And I followed this
suspicious chap, tapped him on the shoulder, spun him around, and
plowed seven bullets into his face. I wonder would I be hero or
villain? Protector or menace? Would I be allowed to walk the
streets in anonymity, free to resume my career in due course? Or
would I be arrested and charged with the cold-blooded murder of an
innocent man who was expecting rain that day?

Tony Blair's evil doctrine of "shoot-to-kill" establishes a clear
marker. The police, and by extension the regime it supports, is
above the law. There is the government, and then its slaves, that
can be hunted and culled at whim.

Britons now must not only fear the possibility of being killed in a
terrorist attack, now they must fear that they could be going about
their lives and be murdered by the police. All a result of Tony
Blair's and George W. Bush's war crimes.

Last Friday, Jean Charles de Menezes was buried in his native city
of Gonzaga. Brazilian labor leaders delivered a letter to the
British consulate in Sao Paulo, saying they "repudiate the
assassination of a Brazilian worker." The letter also demanded "the
punishment of those responsible for the killing."

"We cannot accept state terrorism as a response to terrorism," labor
leader Paulo Pereira da Silva told a crowd of about 50 gathered in
front of the British consulate. "Menezes was assassinated; he was
executed by the British government."

Jean Charles de Menezes, just 27 years old, is one more of the tens
of thousands of victims of Tony Blair's dishonesty and evil
disregard for human life.

Big Brother had the image of a boot stamping on the human face
forever. I guess Big Tony's new image for Britain is seven bullets
to the back of the head.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

[Watson]

Thanks Rahly,

I went and checked out the video footage. Shite.

It is interesting how apathetic people are you know, I have told a handful of people about this incident today and the responses have been the same. They all think that something must of happened, police dont just do this sort of thing for no reason, and they dont want too know.

Maybe its me, I have been telling them about my conspiricy theories for years. Diana, 9/11, compulsary photo id's, how the education system is designed to squash our freethinking minds, paying family men really low wages so their wives are forced to work and place their children in government childcare facilities, govt owned only as the private ones have no subsidies, thus creating a whole new generation of sheep.

I could go on for days, but what I really want to say is thanks for all this interesting reading, I am loving it.

Cheers

[rahly]

You're most welcome,my dear Watson.

As for "conspiracy theories";there ARE no "conspiracy theories",only conspiracies and the theories that surround them,if you catch my drift.

If you like,I can point you to some VERY intriguing full-length documentaries,some over 2hrs. long,that you can download and watch on your PC.Just PM me,and I'll send you the links.
You really can't argue with what's actually going on in these docues.It's all there for you to witness for yourself,not just cheap talk and sensationalism.Michael Moore's got nothing on these guys!
If everyone knew who was REALLY behind 9/11,there'd be open civil war in the States,I'm sure.By the time people finally succumb to the truth,they'll have been boiled like the proverbial frog.
It's really too bad,but it was destined to happen.

Cheers,Mate.

[hithere]

The tragic incident in London with the murder of that Brazilian man by the police goes to show how much Blair's mind is controlled by Bush. Blair is using the same wild west reasoning Bush loves so much.

I strongly believe that Bush studies and acts Hitler's psychology.

[rahly]

I do believe you're bang on,there,hithere.
As a matter of fact the Bush family had strong ties to Hitler's Germany.GOOB's grandfather,Prescott Bush,was a major financial contributor to Hitler's war machine.That's a matter of public record.